An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Global carbon trading: red herring?
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Right now in Bali the world's leaders, or at least some of them, are gathered to discuss the setting of interim greenhouse gas emission targets for a post-Kyoto carbon trading agreement.
The only problem is, they're not really discussing targets so much as discussing how committed they are to doing something in the distant future, but how they also won't commit to any emissions reductions unless everyone else gets onboard, including developing nations i.e. those least able to regulate, control or afford the effects of some of these measures on their economies.
Of particular note, to me at least, is the lovely rhetoric coming from Australia's esteemed leader about how we stand ready to do our part to reduce emissions by 40-60% by 2050 - but we won't commit to any binding targets for 2020 i.e. when he might still be in government or which would mandate doing something in the near future.
All of this leads me to wonder of course, whether global emissions trading schemes are really just a giant red herring in the search for sustainable solutions to anthropic climate change. Any global scheme pretty much always ends up wound up in the politics of not doing anything that'll cost money or looks like it might cost money.
So the question I put to you D&D, is global emissions trading doomed to failure under the political weights of any kind of global scheme or organization? And, given or considering this, what sorts of schemes might represent actual solutions?
My opinion on the matter, is that first world nations like Australia, the US and EU, need to work towards local solutions - there is certainly the popular pressure for governments to do so. We need to develop the techniques and technologies to tax and regulate our own emissions internally, rather then jumping the gun and trying to get everyone to do it simultaneously. This, I believe, is an endeavor far more likely to succeed since it doesn't have as much potential for completely external buck-passing - the goal is to maintain economic productivity while improving emissions, rather then as global schemes tend to imply, sacrificing ones economy for emissions (hence why everyone gets hung up on equally doing it).
The only problem is, they're not really discussing targets so much as discussing how committed they are to doing something in the distant future, but how they also won't commit to any emissions reductions unless everyone else gets onboard, including developing nations i.e. those least able to regulate, control or afford the effects of some of these measures on their economies.
Of particular note, to me at least, is the lovely rhetoric coming from Australia's esteemed leader about how we stand ready to do our part to reduce emissions by 40-60% by 2050 - but we won't commit to any binding targets for 2020 i.e. when he might still be in government or which would mandate doing something in the near future.
All of this leads me to wonder of course, whether global emissions trading schemes are really just a giant red herring in the search for sustainable solutions to anthropic climate change. Any global scheme pretty much always ends up wound up in the politics of not doing anything that'll cost money or looks like it might cost money.
So the question I put to you D&D, is global emissions trading doomed to failure under the political weights of any kind of global scheme or organization? And, given or considering this, what sorts of schemes might represent actual solutions?
My opinion on the matter, is that first world nations like Australia, the US and EU, need to work towards local solutions - there is certainly the popular pressure for governments to do so. We need to develop the techniques and technologies to tax and regulate our own emissions internally, rather then jumping the gun and trying to get everyone to do it simultaneously. This, I believe, is an endeavor far more likely to succeed since it doesn't have as much potential for completely external buck-passing - the goal is to maintain economic productivity while improving emissions, rather then as global schemes tend to imply, sacrificing ones economy for emissions (hence why everyone gets hung up on equally doing it).
electricitylikesme on
0
Posts
One of the examples the guy brings up is a company in France buying credit by financing a methane gas capture project in Argentina. They can then sell their credit to companies who do pollute. It sounds great for the people in Argentina and obviously for the company in France which will probably profit from the deal, but how does that translate into helping the environment? Does that facility really offset part of a coal plant or drilling for oil?
I've seen mention of a mass production techniques using silicon templates that should allow for massive quantities of these little buggers. Some Israeli researchers, if I remember correctly, but I can't find the link.
If nations began replacing their copper transmission lines with a nanotube equivalent, it should pay for the development cost of the manufacturing technology in terms of the longterm power savings, the effect of providing a massive carbon sink, and power savings from the reduced resistance in transmitting power from the plants to the end consumer. At the same time, a nanotube-based powergrid should have a higher tensile strength than traditional copper wiring, making the network more resistant to grid failures.
Aside from the initial cost of developing the manufacturing technology... is there a drawback in making the technological leap to full production of carbon nanotubes?
Also I can understand countries being reluctant to agree unless most are on board. If only half the nations agree to limit carbon output, they won't really have solved the problem, they will have just put themselves at a disadvantage economically.
Why not?
It's better than just storing it as sodium bicarbonate, which is one of the current carbon sink ideas.
Plus, increased power efficency means a net power savings, so that would act to reduce the carbon footprint of nations still relying on fossil fuels in their power plants.
Sorry, this just seems like a logical technological progression to me.
...so, yes they do just pull carbon out of the air to make the tubes?
And the reason governments aren't doing it is because infrastructure advancements are fucking expensive. Most governments are loathe to do it with tried and true methods with decades-centuries of experience backing them, let alone something even remotely risky. Bandages are cheaper until the bridge collapses, but that won't be under my administration, so fuck it.
You'd need one country to jump on the bandwagon first and demonstrate the benefits of the technology. Of course, they'd have to foot the bill for the manufacturing startup, but they could then turn around and sell the technology to the rest of the world.
Even just starting with a small section of a major power grid known to be operating near its limit, say upgrading the east coast transmission grid, should demonstrate the effectiveness of the tech.
That's still risky for something that, as far as the people in charge are concerned, is not proven tech. If it wound up being a bust, it would be a huge waste of money and resources.
Well, re-fitting a small town in the midwest would probably be the next best option. Either way, I would think it would be a definite technology to investigate further.
What are the other options for increasing power transmission efficency? Carbon nanotubes are probably the most viable technology currently in development. Metallic room temperature superconducting wire certainly isn't anywhere near reality at the moment, but carbon nanotubes appears geared to providing for a much needed massive decrease in resistance.
But what would we do with all that extra copper?
A more federated power plant system rather than getting it all from 3 huge ones half the state away from population centers.
That makes sense. But even a closer power plant would still benefit from less resistance in transmission.
Ahh sweet democracy. One of the most short-sighted forms of government around.
Yup, definitely the worst form of government right after all the other ones.
Where does a divinely appointed monarchy fall?
If it's me? Then better then Democracy.
Anyone else? Worse.
Yeah, sadly it doesn't really get any better. Still doesn't mean the system doesn't encourage short-sightedness and putting what's good for today over what's good for tomorrow.
1. "Hot air" - i.e. unearned surplus allowances for countries like Russia and Ukraine, which had their allocations set relative to their 1990 outputs and are now in a depressed state. consequently, they have less relative domestic abatement.
2. Monitoring and enforcement
3. Leakages where taxed producers passing additional costs to consumers lose market share to less taxed competitors
4. In the EU ETS, allocations between iron, steel, minerals, energy, pulp and paper create hostility to arbitrary allotments
5. Free rider problem of reduced global warming public good
6. Efficient charges are actually better since marginal external dmg is relatively elastic and marginal costs of abatement are very inelastic (basically, small changes in quantity of allowed emissions result in large changes to producer costs, but smaller effects on environmental costs). It also makes emissions FIXED, where as emissions actually decrease in the presence of tech advancement where there are charges.
While room temperature superconducting isn't viable (for the obvious reason that there are currently no room temperature superconductors), it's possible to use liquid nitrogen to cool various cuprates to superconducting temperature. For example using Powder in Tube (PIT) technology (essentially putting your oxide reagents in a metal tube, and then rolling, heating, and drawing out the tube so the superconductor forms inside a wire) its possible to cool various stoichiometric amounts of BaSrCaCuO (BSCCO) to create superconducting wires.
By using High Temperature Superconductors, it's possible to create a viable superconducting electrical grid, as liquid nitrogen is far cheaper the liquid hydrogen or helium, and insulated wires rarely need topping up. I believe this technology is planned to be used in several pilot studies including this one. However, without restructuring the grid, as Moniker suggests, an entire superconducting network would be more expensive and difficult to build than necessary.
I don't know much about the efficacy of carbon nanotubes, but it's a relatively nascent technology, and probably harder to implement (considering the size and difficulty in constructing nanotubes).
In regards to the OP, carbon trading is definitely a red herring as companies selling their credits are very 'optimistic' about how much carbon they are removing. By encouraging carbon trading, we miss out on meaningful development, such as revamping public transport and electricity generation, which while initially expensive would be a much better option for actually reducing pollution in the long run. It essentially allows companies that pollute to buy their way out of responsibility, rather than change their processes for the better. And what slowroll said.
I'm not so sure that any President would sign on to such a thing. Kyoto was rejected by both parties in 1997, and I don't see China or India embracing such restrictions anytime soon. In addition, nations are now facing billions of dollars in fines for not meeting goals right now, and taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill. It's not going to be pretty no matter who is in office.
Seems like it makes sense in principle, if the credits are sold as offsets from a company producing net reduction of atmospheric methane or whatever. Isn't that what a "clean development mechanism" project is for?
Essentially, yes. Spot on in fact.
Also; the model for carbon trading being used (sulphur trading) is completely inappropriate, as carbon emissions come from a much larger variety of sources than sulphur; they are trying to apply a national model to the international, it doesn't work (see politics above); political allocation of credits pretty much ensures that the system will fail when faced with the shortages it is designed to enforce (ie Euro price of 1 ton of CO2 has fallen from 31 $Euro to under 1 $Euro in the past year in response to high oil prices / energy concerns, as more credits have been released by political masters of the system).
I've talked to the economists asked to design, research & contribute to international carbon trading systems, and they all say that they are impossible to effectively implement in the near future. The fact they are still a hot political topic and touted solution by (some) in the environmental lobby is a reflection of the total idiocy of much political debate on the environment.
Electricity, you picked up on precisely that in the first post, so good job. However, it's not entirely fair to (implicitly) blame the politicians though; they are only big on talk and low on action because they realise that their populations are exactly the same. Until ostensibly concerned populations are willing to actually take a hit in their 'lifestyle choices', ie some kind of economic hardship, serious action in the West on climate change isn't happening. And even then, it isn't going to make much, if any, difference.
I'm not entirely sure what your point was with these, but the Fuller quote is somewhat ridiculous in this situation. The reality is that international carbon trading is not happening, and is not going to happen in the near future. Even his original political point makes that clear, without the stuff I added on above. But building a new model depends on the existing reality. Its implementation depends on the existing reality; the possiblility of it being done in purely mathematical / economic terms is beyond us in the existing reality; the effectiveness of it in the current political situation will be nil, in the existing reality.
It's a nice quote, but you cannot simply have a revolution every time you want to try something new. World doesn't work that way, sorry. In politics most of all, things evolve from and are dependent on their recent history. As such, since the internal solutions suggested by Electricity are possible to implement, they are a practical solution. ICT is not.
Not that it annoys me when people with a tenuous grasp on the facts of a subject substitute generalised quotations as if it means something. :roll:
Ever read the context of that quote, and most of Churchill's others on democracy? Apparently not. Point is not a validation of democracy as it is, it's encouraging the evolution of an imperfect system to better forms. IE: democracy is a bit shit, make it better.
Second I get unjailed I'm making a thread about that, and why current debate about political systems (on a macro scale) focuses almost entirely on the international, and not at all on how we could improve our national systems of democracy, which are almost universally acknowledged to be pretty fucked.
Derail over.
That's true, and I guess it's what I'm wondering if we'll see in the next few months in Australia. A lot of environmental groups were big on Rudd because he promised to ratify Kyoto, however his wording has never actually committed himself to doing anything. What's bothering me is no one in the media seems to care, so far it's all "good stuff" to have Australia talk about doing it's role without actually committing to doing it.
We're chairing conferences and stuff - see we're important! No guys really, guys? guys?
My grasp isn't as tenuous as you seem to assume. Also, you might want to read up on Bill McDonough. My signature links to his book.
I have quite enough to read as it is, thanks. First, you might want to either demonstrate a real grasp of the issue instead of simply professing one, or alternatively explain why - aside from the fact that they both concern environmental issues - I should listen to an architect about creating an economic system?
I'm all for lateral education & reading outside the subject, but it's going to take more than a sentence to sell me on that one.
After the last half dozen 'green' threads I've been in I don't really feel compelled to extol my understanding of climate change and potential means to avert it. Plus I'm at work, and don't really have time to squeeze out a treatise during my lunch break. Also there's nothing wrong with the economic system, the problem is with the industrial processes which take place within it. Changing to to place the cost of environmental externalities is the most likely way to bring about change, but that's more because of myopic CEO's and CFO's who conflate environmentalism with greenpeace. They don't realize the benefits of having cradle to cradle design and industrial processes which reduce overhead, legacy, &c. costs all while improving the ecological footprint of their factories, which reduces costs in regards to the EPA and existing regulation. If you don't hold architects in equal regard to business leaders, even though they are business leaders, then look into natural capitalism. Or don't, whatever.